Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bozzball]

This post is enough to make me not want to vote for you.

[bozzball]

This post is enough to make me not want to vote for you.

This post was posted about jotheonah's post containing the information about the "more informational because its informed by information" post.

[Robz888]

So the question you need to answer is which is more suspicious: conviction/consistency or excitability/flexibility? Just keep in mind that the mafia already know who they're trying to kill. They're the ones who can afford conviction.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, totally wrong. The mafia don't need conviction/consistency. The townspeople need those things. Excitability and flexibility are the mafia's top tools for scoring lynch kills in their favor. There are way more town than mafia, so the more hedging the more flexibility, the more excitability, the more likely we are to expand the circle of suspicion to including way too many innocent people. We need conviction (based on evidence and reason, of course) to get the mafia. They don't need conviction or consistency to get us.

To state it practically, the mafia don't care if we kill Morgrim. They just care that we kill someone, because that person is likely not to be a mafia. I cared that we killed Morgrim specifically, and I was convicted and consistent in that respect because I suspected him, for reasons I've stated and that many people, including jtheonah at the time, agreed with.

[Voltgloss]

I have a question for Robz that may help focus our discussion:

This is a valid point. I full admit to hammering Morgrim hard. There were a lot of things that made me suspicious of him. But some of the things I said about him I said because I hoped it would provoke him, and possibly get him to confess or say something really incriminating. Or, if he respond reasonably, I might have reconsidered my vote. It's so hard to make these calls and read people, and one way of doing this is to provoke and irritate.

Which comments/posts of yours re: Morgrim fall into this "provoke and irritate" category, as opposed to points of solid suspicion?

[Voltgloss]

I'm sorry, I can't resist.

[Robz888]

So you admit that your "case" against me is entirely based on Day 2.

I would say that's fair.

Why would you be more convinced by a case built on recent events surrounding people whose identities are still unknown then one built on older events informed by the known identities of Morgrim and Tables?

What is it that you don't like about how I'm acting?

On Day 2 I've been (1) remorseful about killing a townie and (2) adamant about finding the killer. Which of those troubles you?

Day 1 evidence is certainly important, I don't deny that at all. I'm trying to weigh the total evidence, and yeah, I don't have much on you until you unvoted Morgrim. And that wouldn't even look suspicious to me (he's acting crazy, unvote! I get that), except then you started talking about these reservations. Don't you see how reservations that do not stop the lynching are the mafia's best friends?

Remorse is fine. I'm remorseful, too. Shifting/denying blame is not okay, though, and you are doing that. I am admitting my fault. I was wrong about Morgrim and it hurt us. If this was a game of "execute the person who got things wrong the most," I would hang myself. But it's not. It's a game of "hang the person who is sitting there going along with people being lynched, because he likes lynching for lynching's sake, but doesn't mind bringing up the lynchers next round so they can die, because as long as someone dies, it's okay." Otherwise known as the game of Mafia.

I have a question for Robz that may help focus our discussion:

This is a valid point. I full admit to hammering Morgrim hard. There were a lot of things that made me suspicious of him. But some of the things I said about him I said because I hoped it would provoke him, and possibly get him to confess or say something really incriminating. Or, if he respond reasonably, I might have reconsidered my vote. It's so hard to make these calls and read people, and one way of doing this is to provoke and irritate.

Which comments/posts of yours re: Morgrim fall into this "provoke and irritate" category, as opposed to points of solid suspicion?

I will look back and post this in a few minutes.

[Galzria]

...<snip>... and there are fair reasons why each of us is supicious (Galzria was all over the place, Volt and I read like we are working in tandem, you expressed hesitance but didn't retract).

...<snip>...

I'm already a little wary of the way you and Robz888 put together some of your arguments for Morgrim. I fully acknowledge he did next to nothing to help his own case, but I've seen a lot of straw-man arguments from you two. It got Morgrim killed.

This is a valid point. I full admit to hammering Morgrim hard. There were a lot of things that made me suspicious of him. But some of the things I said about him I said because I hoped it would provoke him, and possibly get him to confess or say something really incriminating. Or, if he respond reasonably, I might have reconsidered my vote. It's so hard to make these calls and read people, and one way of doing this is to provoke and irritate. I wouldn't have done this to him if I didn't already have strong suspicions. But so long as the mafia behave like rational people, it is hard to figure them out. I was hoping to provoke him into behaving irrationally, so that we could learn for certain whether he was mafia. (You can check the other game for evidence of this play style.) And let me point out, I did succeed at getting him to act irrationally... but instead of saying something that truly revealed his allegiance, he offed himself. And I am sorry about that.

...<snip>...

Alright, let me work backwards here, starting from the bottom. Thank you for the response. While I may not like your methods, at least I have some understanding to them now. Your accusations often seemed harsh and unnecessary, but at least were directed with reason. I still don't find your arguments for your final case compelling, but it was obvious from very early on that you were at least convinced (or willing to push as hard as you needed to in order to draw something perhaps LESS damning out of him, which I'll argue he never really provided).

I'm still suspicious of everybody here, and you'll remain right up there if for no other reason than you're one of the 4 that sent Morgrim to his grave, but I stand by my thought that your crimes seem less egregious than the others at this time.

On to your first point, about me being scattered. Do you still believe this to be true? I've offered my reasons in post #261, but I'll restate things here. First, my vote on Voltgloss:

While the vote for Voltgloss was unneeded, I was making a point. I am (as posted above and in many other places) very, very, VERY against random accusations and a "stir-the-pot" playstyle that leads to confusion. If you have a point to make, BACK IT UP. Early on, Voltgloss did not do this. He fully admitted it. Once his actions became more directed and he started posting ideas for their analytical value, I quickly backed off.

In post #50 (very, very early on) Volt cast suspicion at Me, Robz888, and Bozzball. He then in quickly took issue to Jotheonah and Morgrim for their No Lynch talk in post #61 (although notably, as I've pointed out, NOT so much to Jotheonah whom he appeared to let slide to go after Morgrim).

Within ELEVEN posts, he had cast suspicion onto FIVE of the nine town members. He was erratic and all over the place! I absolutely 100% maintain, THIS STYLE OF PLAY ONLY HELPS THE MAFIA.

So the question you need to answer is which is more suspicious: conviction/consistency or excitability/flexibility? Just keep in mind that the mafia already know who they're trying to kill. They're the ones who can afford conviction.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, totally wrong. The mafia don't need conviction/consistency. The townspeople need those things. Excitability and flexibility are the mafia's top tools for scoring lynch kills in their favor. There are way more town than mafia, so the more hedging the more flexibility, the more excitability, the more likely we are to expand the circle of suspicion to including way too many innocent people. We need conviction (based on evidence and reason, of course) to get the mafia. They don't need conviction or consistency to get us.

To state it practically, the mafia don't care if we kill Morgrim. They just care that we kill someone, because that person is likely not to be a mafia. I cared that we killed Morgrim specifically, and I was convicted and consistent in that respect because I suspected him, for reasons I've stated and that many people, including jtheonah at the time, agreed with.

You appear to agree with me. After he stopped casting about and settled down (and as much since), I removed my vote. His thoughts and posts have become much more directed, and his reasons have all been well thought out, if not always correct in my opinion.

After unvoting Voltgloss, I next went after Bozzball. My stated reason: From post #151

...<snip>...
As to Bozzball: Robz888 was gone for awhile, came back, and made a courtesy post of "Hey, let me get caught up, and I'll post my thoughts". To me, at least, this seemed rather innocent. To Bozzball it apparently didn't, and he immediately cast a vote on Robz888.

That seemed over aggressive. Like I've said from the beginning, I don't like random play for the sake of randomness. It breeds confusion, the weapon of the Mafia. I'm very careful when I start making accusations to try and produce a well founded argument, so as to not allow uncertainty or wiggle room. I too work in journalism. Political Science focus. I'm very NOT red-meat oriented.

When I inquired further to Bozzball, his answer was short, and I felt rather unsatisfactory. Saying he just felt it was suspicious. It added nothing, and hardly built a case. Since then, he hasn't said a word, allowing for more confusion and accusations to fly while staying disengaged.

Being away in and of itself is not criminal. But the feel of his actions has left me more than suspicious. Would I go so far as to say he IS Mafia? No. But I don't mind applying pressure where I think it's needed.

As you can see, I absolutely did not find his actions criminal, just very suspicious. Did I need to cast my vote for him? No, but as it was early, and I had the first vote cast on him, I wasn't worried about bandwagoning or putting him into real harm. I just wanted to give him pause to think and force him to have to defend his actions. When Kuildeous cast the 3rd vote on Bozzball (following Morgrim, whose vote at the time looked like a "cast suspicion elsewhere" tactic) in post #165

I did actually vote for Insomniac, but it didn't take. I suspect because I omitted the colon, and I’m sure the moderator is searching for that (we do provide a lot of text to sift through).

My vote was pretty much random, but I then reread the rules and saw that a tie means that there is no lynch. So, if a no-lynch vote is bad for the town, then it would reason that a tie is just as harmful. So, I'm avoiding the random vote and jumping on the bandwagon. I will vote: bozzball and may the gods have mercy on us if we are wrong.


I would like to ask for a clarification. I know the Doctor and Jailkeeper can prevent a death. Does that include death from lynching?

I backed off RIGHT AWAY. Post #170:

- Bozzball, you keep saying you don't see how a first day vote can be anything but random.  That suggests to me that you don't find the arguments against Morgrim convincing.  I would like to hear more detail on why that is so.

Because the arguments seem to be that he should be lynched because he voted for "No lynch", and that he suggested people should get on and vote because there's not much benefit for waiting - as the first day vote will essentially be random. Both of these are arguments that I have made.

Those arguments, while I find... Less than innocuous, aren't tells as far as I'm concerned. Of greater worry to me, were points made in posts #118, #128, and #140. It's those arguments that have me UNVOTE: BOZZBALL, and instead VOTE:  MORGRIM7. I've fully laid out the rest of my reasons to that move in posts #151, and #158.

I used my vote on Bozzball to try and force his hand, NOT to demonize or go after him. I was not at ALL convinced of guilt there, and certainly didn't want to see him get picked off when we had Morgrim, who was acting SO much more suspicious in our midst.

What concerned me (and still VERY much does), is that Kuildeous WAS willing to put Bozzball in danger when there wasn't any real case against him... especially as he was following up by casting a vote #3 AFTER MORGRIM WHO APPEARED TO BE GUILTY AT THE TIME CAST VOTE #2.

...<snip>...
My original plan for changing my vote to bozzball was to push the vote up to 3 to see if the Mafia players would jump on and push the vote to 5. Unfortunately, the vote is at 2, as Galzria changed his vote shortly after
...<snip>...

This not only keeps him out of the Morgrim picture and in a position of "safety", but it allows for a TINAS case, where if people abandon their thoughts of Morgrim's guilt (this means thinking he might be innocent), he's set up a fall-man in Bozzball - conveniently also Morgrim's choice.

So yes, I absolutely jumped out of the Bozzball vote column. To allow that line of thinking to continue seemed VERY dangerous to me, and MUCH more likely to lynch an innocent man. If this seems erratic or scattered, so be it. But I feel every action was done for a very clear reason, and I was never willing to put into danger anybody I wasn't comfortable lynching. Please let me know if this clears everything up with you, or if there is more I can say.

Also, I highly encourage people to take a second look at Kuildeous. His actions at first glance appear VERY "safe", and he was nowhere near the Morgrim fiasco. As I strongly believe there to be a Mafia that didn't vote for Morgrim, his "hedging" comes back as very very suspect. The fact that he further said (also from post #200)

Hell, in this post, I simultaneously condemned and exonerated Mogrim. Well, not really exonerate. I'll still vote for him if there's a compelling reason. People are eagerly awaiting Tables's analysis. I'll join in on that and see what he has to say.

It leaves me to believe that he was willing to get in and involved with Morgrim if he NEEDED to (in order to get an allusive vote #5 perhaps), but that we was hoping to get somebody else to do it for him!

[Robz888]

Here is a sampling of my anti-Morgrim posts. They were all sincere, but in some cases I made my case more abrasively and stridently, just because I want to needle him and see how he responded.

Reply #91

I say back down from your No Lynch vote and you back down? No conviction there? Easy on the bandwagon, easy off the bandwagon.

I was wrong about what he was unvoting, and I was more or a jerk than I needed to be. But as I've said a lot (and a lot recently), not having conviction is scary. Go along to get along is scary. IT looked to me like he did this: he jumped on no lynch (a bad thing anyway) and then jumped off. I was actually wrong here about what he was doing, though.

Reply #142 I was responding to Morgrim

This is a mystifying response to me. "I will say this again and no more." I mean, if it's unclear or un-persuasive to us, why not say it more? Also, look, I know it sucks to have every little thing you say picked apart. Alas, that's what we have to do. And all CAPS responses look incriminating to me. They look overly defensive. They look like a mafia grasping at straws and getting angry that it's looking increasingly likely that he goes first. If you are innocent, we need you to explain why with calm, reasoned, lengthy posts, not "because I WANTED TO KNOW THEIR OPINION."

Perhaps it's a bit of needling to quibble with his line "I will say this again and no more."I don't think it's unfair, but it's not something that would stand up in court. But if you'll look at the rest of it, I think you'll see this was really a valid post explaining why Morgrim was a top suspect. And he was starting to lose it a bit, and that was the only way we were going to be sure about anything.

Reply #198

Surely you can muster a better defense than "I claim to be a villager." You meant to say, "I am a villager."

Probably the closest thing I said that was pure needling. Granted, he already has plenty of votes by now and I have enough to go on, in my view. But imagine if he had responded, "UGH, SCREW YOU, YOU'RE DEAD TONIGHT!!!!!!" Then we would know. And I know you're thinking, that's stupid, of course he wouldn't do that. Well, he did something that didn't (and still doesn't) make sense: he killed himself. So, though it didn't produce the desired result, the tactic has merit. And I wouldn't have said that to him unless I already had a lot of suspicions. And I did--so did we all. He already had a ton of votes by then.

By the way, I didn't even necessarily notice this the first time through, but shortly after the above post, Morgrim responded with this:

So I am ruined then? Oh well. What will happen when you find out that I am mafia?
And more importanaly, who will.the mafia kill now that I am dead?

Was that sarcasm? I mean, obviously it was, but it sure doesn't read like it. Oh well.

[Voltgloss]

I think it would be helpful to hear Insomniac's take on all that has been argued since his last post.  I see from checking his profile that he was last on about twenty minutes ago (as of the time I'm posting this). 

I would ask for bozzball's take as well but his last post concerns me that he is leaning towards withdrawing from the game.  I can't tell for sure though what his intentions are - heck, it sounds like he's in the process of mulling over what he wants to do.  Axxle, would appreciate your thoughts on how to proceed re: bozzball.  Maybe a PM to ask him to confirm whether he wants to withdraw or not?  I dunno.

[Voltgloss]

I would also very much like to hear Robz's take on Galzria's suspicion of Kuildeous.  Why Robz?  Because if Galzria is right, then (most likely) Kuildeous is in a Mafia team with either me, jotheonah, Robz, or Galzria.  I highly doubt he's teamed up with Galzria only for Galzria to throw him under the bus so vehemently.  And Kuildeous for his part now sounds convinced that either I or jotheonah is Mafia.  The only member of the "lynched Morgrim" group who Kuildeous has not strongly suspected (or has not strongly suspected him in turn) is Robz.  So that, to my eye, makes it seem that if Kuildeous is Mafia, then Robz is his most likely accomplice. 

I also remember this:

Tables and Kuildeous would be mostly in the clear in my view, but Tables is dead. So Kuildeous is the only one I don't truly suspect.

And this:

For now, I'm willing to drop my suspicions of Robz and Galzria. They're still on my radar, but Voltgloss and jotheonah have raised some serious flags that Robz and Galzria have not.

Which is why I want to hear what Robz has to say about the suspicion aimed at Kuildeous. 

Shutting up now because I've been posting a lot.  There's a lot I would like to read and digest before weighing in again.

[Robz888]

I said Kuildeous is almost certainly not mafia for this reason: He had the opportunity to vote for Morgrim, and didn't. Since we now know Morgrim was innocent, I assume the mafia would have voted for Morgrim. It's not clear to me that Insomniac and Bozzball were clued in to things at the time the votes were rolling in. But Tables and Kuildeous were active online, and commenting, and they specifically did not vote for Morgrim. If either of them were mafia, I think they would have.

Although, I guess it's worth considering that if the mafia were sure the town was going to lynch Morgrim anyway, they would NOT vote for him themselves. That's not something I've given much thought, actually. Hmm. Well, J, Volt, and me all voted Morgrim. I guess if you are Kuildeous and you are a mafia you might say, nah I'll let Tables or Bozz or Insomniac (or Morgrim?) cast that vote. Hmmm.

[Robz888]

I said Kuildeous is almost certainly not mafia for this reason: He had the opportunity to vote for Morgrim, and didn't. Since we now know Morgrim was innocent, I assume the mafia would have voted for Morgrim. It's not clear to me that Insomniac and Bozzball were clued in to things at the time the votes were rolling in. But Tables and Kuildeous were active online, and commenting, and they specifically did not vote for Morgrim. If either of them were mafia, I think they would have.

Although, I guess it's worth considering that if the mafia were sure the town was going to lynch Morgrim anyway, they would NOT vote for him themselves. That's not something I've given much thought, actually. Hmm. Well, J, Volt, and me all voted Morgrim. I guess if you are Kuildeous and you are a mafia you might say, nah I'll let Tables or Bozz or Insomniac (or Morgrim?) cast that vote. Hmmm.

Edit: J, Volt, me, and Galz all voted Morgrim.

[jotheonah]

Why would you be more convinced by a case built on recent events surrounding people whose identities are still unknown then one built on older events informed by the known identities of Morgrim and Tables?

What is it that you don't like about how I'm acting?

On Day 2 I've been (1) remorseful about killing a townie and (2) adamant about finding the killer. Which of those troubles you?

Day 1 evidence is certainly important, I don't deny that at all. I'm trying to weigh the total evidence, and yeah, I don't have much on you until you unvoted Morgrim. And that wouldn't even look suspicious to me (he's acting crazy, unvote! I get that), except then you started talking about these reservations. Don't you see how reservations that do not stop the lynching are the mafia's best friends?

Remorse is fine. I'm remorseful, too. Shifting/denying blame is not okay, though, and you are doing that. I am admitting my fault. I was wrong about Morgrim and it hurt us. If this was a game of "execute the person who got things wrong the most," I would hang myself. But it's not. It's a game of "hang the person who is sitting there going along with people being lynched, because he likes lynching for lynching's sake, but doesn't mind bringing up the lynchers next round so they can die, because as long as someone dies, it's okay." Otherwise known as the game of Mafia.

How does talking about reservations = shifting/denying blame?

I will say it again to be totally clear. I suspected Morgrim along with everyone else. I voted for him because I suspected him. Towards the end, I started to doubt. First before he died, based on how little he was fighting to stay alive (I would have expected more kicking and screaming from the mafia and fewer defeatist sarcastic comments). The reservations were not enough for an unvote, in my book. I thought maybe it was an elaborate strategy to elicit just that response from me. Plus, He was only at three votes. It didn't seem like there was a pressing need to back down.

Robz voted. I didn't have a chance to unvote at that point, and I'm not sure I would have. Even though I thought there was maybe a 40% chance of Morgrim being innocent, I desperately wanted to see who threw the hammer. That info seemed more valuable than a living Morgrim - who would continue to be distracting, unhelpful, and suspicious.

Then Morgrim threw the hammer at himself. Because I happened to be online when it happened, I thought it fell to me to try to save him - and, more importantly, to recover that data. Believe me, I wish I hadn't, since all it's brought me is a level of suspicion that is quite frankly way out of proportion to what I've done.

So the question you need to answer is which is more suspicious: conviction/consistency or excitability/flexibility? Just keep in mind that the mafia already know who they're trying to kill. They're the ones who can afford conviction.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, totally wrong. The mafia don't need conviction/consistency. The townspeople need those things. Excitability and flexibility are the mafia's top tools for scoring lynch kills in their favor. There are way more town than mafia, so the more hedging the more flexibility, the more excitability, the more likely we are to expand the circle of suspicion to including way too many innocent people. We need conviction (based on evidence and reason, of course) to get the mafia. They don't need conviction or consistency to get us.

To state it practically, the mafia don't care if we kill Morgrim. They just care that we kill someone, because that person is likely not to be a mafia. I cared that we killed Morgrim specifically, and I was convicted and consistent in that respect because I suspected him, for reasons I've stated and that many people, including jtheonah at the time, agreed with.

Without someone beating a war drum, townspeople will argue until they're blue in the face. Why? Because they lack information, so any suspicion they have is just that, a suspicion. We don't feel sure of ourselves so we don't want to hang anybody. You're right that the townspeople need conviction, but they don't tend to have it, particularly not on Day 1.

Mafia don't need to see a specific person lynched, but they do need a lynching, and they need it to be directed at least enough to stay off them. One way to do this is to zero in on the townie who's the most suspicious and lead a charge against them. It's a bit obvious, but it's also, as we've all shown today, totally defensible in retrospect.

I agreed with your stated reasons at the time. Now I'm drawing into question whether your stated reasons were reason enough to kill Morgrim, or whether they were just rhetoric backing up a mafia-led bandwagon.  If they were the latter, then yes, I'm saying I was taken in. I'm saying I was wrong. But I'm still saying we need to look closely at what was said and how much we OUGHT to have believed it.

I said Kuildeous is almost certainly not mafia for this reason: He had the opportunity to vote for Morgrim, and didn't. Since we now know Morgrim was innocent, I assume the mafia would have voted for Morgrim. It's not clear to me that Insomniac and Bozzball were clued in to things at the time the votes were rolling in. But Tables and Kuildeous were active online, and commenting, and they specifically did not vote for Morgrim. If either of them were mafia, I think they would have.

Although, I guess it's worth considering that if the mafia were sure the town was going to lynch Morgrim anyway, they would NOT vote for him themselves. That's not something I've given much thought, actually. Hmm. Well, J, Volt, and me all voted Morgrim. I guess if you are Kuildeous and you are a mafia you might say, nah I'll let Tables or Bozz or Insomniac (or Morgrim?) cast that vote. Hmmm.

There's no telling whether he would have eventually cast vote #5 after waiting for someone else to do it first. I don't find this defense very compelling.

[jotheonah]

A wide circle of suspicion is good for the mafia, I agree. But a wide circle of suspicion doesn't lead to a kill. That takes a majority of votes, which means once that wide net has been cast, the mafia's goal is to guide the town in zeroing in on one victim, to make sure that victim isn't them.

[Galzria]

Jotheonah, your last point above after quoting Robz isn't quite in context. Robz was responding to Voltgloss, who in turn was responding to my STRONG feelings about the guilt of Kuildeous. I DID post reasons he had shown that he would cast a late vote. Robz had originally said he believed Kuildeous to be innocent. I've provided quotes and thoughts as to why I believe that to be incorrect. An issue you haven't really responded to. I highly encourage you to review my last few posts, and then Kuildeous's actions.

[Voltgloss]

Just a quick comment, as it jumped into my head.

I will say it again to be totally clear. I suspected Morgrim along with everyone else. I voted for him because I suspected him. Towards the end, I started to doubt. First before he died, based on how little he was fighting to stay alive (I would have expected more kicking and screaming from the mafia and fewer defeatist sarcastic comments). The reservations were not enough for an unvote, in my book. I thought maybe it was an elaborate strategy to elicit just that response from me. Plus, He was only at three votes. It didn't seem like there was a pressing need to back down.

About those "defeatist sarcastic comments" (an apt description):  I thought Morgrim was trying to pull a TINAS.  Still do, in fact.

[jotheonah]

Galzria, I was hesitant to weigh in on Kuildeaous without contributing anything to the discussion, lest I seem scummy, and my finite mafia time has been largely taken up with self-defense, unfortunately.

However, your analysis is certainly damning. I've suspected Kuildeaous twice in the past, first, somewhat unseriously, for not having engaged in any serious analysis early on, and second, more seriously, for being willfully unhelpful in his insistence that the first day vote woud be essentially random.

Why advance that position? If you end up voting for an innocent, you can say "It was random anyway" and avoid blame. It also offers a convenient excuse for staying out of the Day 1 fracas, which, as we've discovered, is where Day 2 suspicions are born.

If it comes to voting time and a good chunk of the group comes out against Kuildeous, I won't hesitate to throw in my lot. As I've said before, he's my top suspect out of the non-Morgrim voters. I eagerly await his detailed defense post.

[Insomniac]

Wow lots to read through I was in fact on but hadn't caught up by the time I had to go for breakfast will review and post in a few mins

[Galzria]

Jotheonah - That's fine, just wanted your view.

Insomniac - Take your time. Thorough observation is better than rushed. Look forward to reading where you're at.

[Robz888]

Jotheonah, your last point above after quoting Robz isn't quite in context. Robz was responding to Voltgloss, who in turn was responding to my STRONG feelings about the guilt of Kuildeous. I DID post reasons he had shown that he would cast a late vote. Robz had originally said he believed Kuildeous to be innocent. I've provided quotes and thoughts as to why I believe that to be incorrect. An issue you haven't really responded to. I highly encourage you to review my last few posts, and then Kuildeous's actions.

Okay, I may have lost track of Kuildeous and overstated his innocence. I was thinking he was not a Morgrim-is-guilty person, which mostly clears him in my view. But if he thought Morgrim was guilty and just didn't get around to putting a vote on, then yeah, he's suspicious.

At some point 2 mafia people had to decide how to handle day 1. We can assume they supported (actively or passively) the death of Morgrim, because Morgrim was innocent. We have to decide whether they set the lynch in motion (me, Volt), hopped on the bandwagon at key moments (Galz, jtheonah), chose to remain on the sidelines because they suspected Morgrim would die anyway (Kuildeous), or didn't do anything about Morgrim because there was no need for them to do so (Bozz, Insomniac). We also have to decide whether the mafia split their efforts, which is likely, or else the pairings would just be too obvious at this point.

[Kuildeous]

What concerned me (and still VERY much does), is that Kuildeous WAS willing to put Bozzball in danger when there wasn't any real case against him... especially as he was following up by casting a vote #3 AFTER MORGRIM WHO APPEARED TO BE GUILTY AT THE TIME CAST VOTE #2.

Fair enough. I did put Bozzball in danger. I have done things that made sense to me at the time but I recognize now that they weren't the best actions to take if I wanted to avoid getting hung. I've peppered my explanations throughout Day 1, but I'll consolidate them here.

Why did I vote indiscriminately for Insomniac?

When I started this game, I saw no reason to vote for anyone. I saw it as a 7/9 chance of lynching a townie. I originally felt that "No lynching" would have been the correct course of action, but I followed the arguments that explained why a NL vote would only hurt the town. Knowing that, I went ahead and cast a vote so that someone would get lynched. It seemed like voting was such an arbitrary thing, so my vote was indeed arbitrary. On that first day, I viewed everyone equally, so each of you had a 1 in 8 chance of getting my vote. It randomly fell on Insomniac.

Why did I change my vote to bozzball?

I felt like I had done my duty in casting my vote. I then reviewed the rules and saw that if there is not a majority of votes by the deadline, then the person who is lynched is the one with a plurality. If there is not a plurality, then there is no lynching. I was concerned that if we reached a deadlock, then we would miss out on an important lynching.

Why didn't I change your vote to Morgrim?

The straight answer is that it's because Morgrim did not look more guilty to me than the rest of you. Sure, he talked a lot, but no flags went up in me. Actually, I had no flags go up in Day 1; those popped up in Day 2. I was all for putting votes on him, but people requested that we wait until Tables came back with information. Since that seemed important to people, I was willing to wait.

Why vote so soon?

At the time, I didn't see the point in talking. A lot of posts went round and round. The more talking there was, the firmer that fingers were pointed. And they pointed incorrectly, so I still stand by my 1/9 chance of getting lynched. Although, it looks like the more you talk, the greater the chance, as Morgrim showed us. It seemed that everything that was going to be said had already been said. There was a hope that Tables would clear up something, but he didn't have any magical way of knowing that Morgrim was innocent. He had the same thing the rest of you did: a feeling. Two weeks seemed like a long time to deliberate without any evidence.

So, yeah, I am in the group of people who conceivably refrained from voting for Mogrim because it's a convenient Mafia thing to do. I can accept that. It's the same reason I hold suspicions of bozzball and Insomniac. I hope you see my point of view, but I wouldn't blame you if you don't. After all, if someone else were to claim that point of view, I'd still be suspicious of him.

[Voltgloss]

I have to correct something in my post quoted below.

I would also very much like to hear Robz's take on Galzria's suspicion of Kuildeous.  Why Robz?  Because if Galzria is right, then (most likely) Kuildeous is in a Mafia team with either me, jotheonah, Robz, or Galzria.  I highly doubt he's teamed up with Galzria only for Galzria to throw him under the bus so vehemently.  And Kuildeous for his part now sounds convinced that either I or jotheonah is Mafia.  The only member of the "lynched Morgrim" group who Kuildeous has not strongly suspected (or has not strongly suspected him in turn) is Robz.  So that, to my eye, makes it seem that if Kuildeous is Mafia, then Robz is his most likely accomplice.

The bolded part is incorrect.  I don't know how, as I was Ctrl-F'ing my way through the thread, that I missed in post #253 that Kuildeous listed Robz as his #1 suspect at the time.  This deals a significant blow to the theory that he and Robz are in cahoots. 

I apologize.  That was a bad error.  Cue the screams "YOU LIED IN PURPOSE I'MMA VOTING YOU" 

[jotheonah]

Are we going to take it as Gospel that our two mafias have never accused each other, even in the earliest stages of the game? Because that seems ... a little sloppy.

[Galzria]

OMG ITS VOLTGLOSS!
VOTE: VOLTGLOSS

...

Oh. Phooey.  Nevermind.
UNVOTE

*Ahem*. Sorry Axxle! 

[Galzria]

Are we going to take it as Gospel that our two mafias have never accused each other, even in the earliest stages of the game? Because that seems ... a little sloppy.

I agree to an extent. I have no doubt that they would lightly go after their partner. I doubt they would hammer away (although I fully admit I could be wrong). But it seems to be a HUGE risk to be really going hard at their teammate.

Like I've said though, confusion is the Mafia's playground. So I wouldn't put much of anything past them.